Kenpo Knife Defense by Juan José negreira

[MJS]

I think "blunt" is good...and I am sorry you're in somewhat of a foul mood today.With that being said? Allow me a similarly direct reply:

The moment you said that you saw nothing of value in Royce's or by extension Rickson's grappling skills visavis self-defense and said that they're wholly removed in essence from actual self-defense? You made your position absolutely clear. Because your position is wholly the opposite of people like military specialists and warriors and special operatives in law enforcement in others the world over.Clearly,you have a position that is directly contrary to the U.S. Border Patrol,Special Forces, Delta and Navy Seal Operators and uniformed personnel in every branch of our military: US Army, US Air Force, US Marine Corps and US Coast Guard. In January 2002, the U.S. Army officially adopted Gracie Jiu-Jitsu as its foundation for hand-to-hand combat with the publication of a manual based almost entirely on the original program designed by Rorion Gracie.

http://gracieacademy.com/military.asp

So Chris,your opinion differs from some of the most lethal and experienced and seasoned real world practitioners of the very same SD and faaaarrr worse SD than you will ever eeeever face in your life.But the great thing is that not only can your opinion differ from theirs? That's your RIGHT and I respect your right to do so.Whether your opinion has a more airtight combat foundation or whether its anywhere near as valid under the circumstances that these elite warriors and law enforcement units find themselves operating and facing real intense issues is another matter entirely.

Your grasp of martial arts history is similarly suspect. Every army the world over practiced martial arts. The SPIRITUAL AND PERSONAL DEVELOPMENT ASPECTS became more pronounced with civilian martial arts training,aaaannnd the desire of various governments to remain in power conflicting with (at times) various civilian or nongovernmental groups wishing to maintain their liberty also profoundly affected the nongovernmental martial arts. I strongly suspect that the capoeiristas who defied Brazil and Portugal to such an extent that the Portuguese government entered negotiations with them about rewarding them specific autonomy similar to what the Native Americans and Amish (to a lesser degree) enjoy here in the USA would find your contentions laughable.The Shaolin Monastery warriors might find a guffaw or five to be had from your position too. The mavya--(who are the Indians who inherited some African martial arts once they travelled from Africa to India)--who are the "boxers" who gave rise to the word "mavya" which in turn is the ancient root for the word Muay (as in Muay Boran,Muay Thai,etc) along with the Muay Boran and Krabi Kabong warriors might find themselves joining in to chortle.The moro moros who came from many regions including India to what is now the Phillipines,combined their martial arts into what later became known as Kali might join in for a knee slapping yukk or two.

Martial arts came from war.The martial arts survived because they worked in war.They went through various refinements and sometimes were tragically lost as they entered the civilian realm...but all of them work for self defense.And all of them had to refine,develope,and adapt--that is to say functionally innovate--in order to be crafted in the first place and survive until the present day.Furthermore,your definition of chuan fa is faulty. chaun fa literally means MOUNTAIN FIST,and WUSHU means MILITARY ART or its rough equivalent.And to be clear? "fist method" is ALSO a MARTIAL ART. While we're on the subject,as far as boxing is concerned? I think that the Greeks and ancient Africans would have a word or two to say about that.

It seems as if you're making the classic mistake that many of the most ardent practitioners of what they think is RBSD make: they conflate athletic attributes with sport performance.They seem to be wholly unaware of the overwhelming fact and thousands of years of legendary history proclaiming the overwhelming imminence of high performance self-defense athletics. Whic segues into the following point: yes I know that my athletic ability oftentimes isn't something that my students share.I don't train them assuming that their clones of me.My response to you was more specific: you indicated that you would have succeeded in knifing me. I doubt that you would do such a thing,as I doubt that you have the experience skill and attributes to pull it off against me as most people don't have the requisite mix.That again is not arrogance on my part,as I could be wrong...but based upon what you just posted? Your (imo) horriffic misassessment of the Gracie's self-defense skill? Your highly flawed recollection of martial history? I gain confidence in my previous assessment being accurate.Btw,the speeds I gave are Olympic calibur elite and the fact that you've never been on the receiving end of an iaido sensei's draw speaks soooo many volumes about what you've NOT faced that I won't get into it.Suffice it to say that you've done soooo much damage to your previous contentions that now your position would have to be infinitely more sturdy than it currently is to UPGRADE to the condition of post-atomic Nagasaki.

And I'll go so far as to say that this is simply a case of people jumping on the bandwagon. 1993, you rarely saw any MA school teaching grappling/MMA/BJJ. Today....everyone offers it. Hell, I was on FB today, as saw a Bujinkan Ninjutsu guy teaching Marines. Yes, I've seen shows in which the military is doing grappling. Yes, this is important, but like I said, its merely the flavor of the month. Watch...when something 'new' comes out, everyone will put their old toys away in favor of the new ones. Amazing how many people make the claim of teaching military. Funny, because you'd figure that each respective branch would be doing the same thing, ie: Every Marine, anywhere in the US would be doing BJJ, yet you see JKD guys say they teach Marines, Ninjutsu guys saying it, everyone says it. Its all about marketing and Rorion is the king of marketing...LOL.

Regarding the grip...which to me is the main point...we partially agree. Basically you say that we should always enter with your recommended method. I disagree but I strongly agree that the variant that you propose is highly functional and desirable,as I use it myself.I don't think that my method is a desperation method and those persons who utilize my method--something which you acknowledge that you don't do--also agree.Recall...for clarity's sake...that my method encompasses yours,not the other way around. I have,in essence,twice the arsenal that you do and the videos that I've shown prove beyond a doubt that the approach works. Now you may not PREFER my approach,but IT'S FUNCTIONALITY is BEYOND DISPUTE. The special units,the highly skilled specialized practitioners,etc. use it daily against top flight full tilt boogie resistance...which is true and cool to say,but my own experience with it wholly guts your position.And since you don't use my method (which let us not forget also encompasses yours)? You're not in a position to offer from experience what it does and doesn't do; you offer an opinion which isn't girded by mat or street experience or both,whereas mine has all of them.And that's cool man. We can agree to disagree on that point and still be amicable towards one another. BUT...and here's a big "but"...I think that a person who has positions as strongly and articulately held as yours should be able to step up to the plate as it were and put his knife skills where his mouth (er,POSTS) are and show us the real deal. Or at least YOUR real deal.You're able to make direct empirical statements about my movements and draw opinions and inferences--however much I may agree or disagree with them,however much they may vary from or be in accordance with reality---because I put myself out there to be seen.Frankly I have the skill will resources and nuts to step up. When making points as insistent as yours are,sir,it would be much to your and our benefit for you to step up like I did. Put your knife where your mouth is. For instance...my position is that one of the major reasons to NOT do as you recommend in the way that you recommend is that you wholly ignore the almost 100% certainty that you'll get knocked and clocked by the other limb.In the S.T.A.B. video,this reality is repeatedly shown. My version provides a plethora of easy go-to (flow to) techs that happen organically very quickly and very effectively--including the one and only method that you champion--addresses the attacker(s) other limbs and deals with them. Have you fought a guy with a bottle,disarmed him,dealt with him,had his buddy rush you,dealt with him,and then dealt with his other homeboy who was rockin a bottle,disarmed him--only to have him pull a knife in the midst of you disarming his bottle? I have? I've had the same experience with an inebriated WOMAN. She took a swing with her bottle,I disarm her...ZING. Out comes the knife.And women tend to SLASH not STAB.Your inflexible method would get me you and others hurt and/or killed under those circumstance if we did as you recommended.Imo at any rate.My techs "win" under those circumstances,that's why I'm still here to post about it.

Like I said, each of the methods has its place. Of course, as I said, I think its also important to take into consideration, the size of the person. The guy in your clip, was, IMO, about your height, but clearly, you seem stronger. Were the bad guy, someone who was taller and stronger than you, it may not be as easy to move the guy, like you were in the clip.

No disrespect intended Ras. I think its safe to say that you and I have engaged in many good discussions, and are, for the most part, on the same page, when it comes to the way we train. Just throwing some other variables into the mix.

 

[Chris Parker]

I think "blunt" is good...and I am sorry you're in somewhat of a foul mood today.With that being said? Allow me a similarly direct reply:

Then let's keep that going, then.

The moment you said that you saw nothing of value in Royce's or by extension Rickson's grappling skills visavis self-defense and said that they're wholly removed in essence from actual self-defense? You made your position absolutely clear. Because your position is wholly the opposite of people like military specialists and warriors and special operatives in law enforcement in others the world over.Clearly,you have a position that is directly contrary to the U.S. Border Patrol,Special Forces, Delta and Navy Seal Operators and uniformed personnel in every branch of our military: US Army, US Air Force, US Marine Corps and US Coast Guard. In January 2002, the U.S. Army officially adopted Gracie Jiu-Jitsu as its foundation for hand-to-hand combat with the publication of a manual based almost entirely on the original program designed by Rorion Gracie.

http://gracieacademy.com/military.asp

Let's break this down for you then. The groups you are discussing are not training in, nor anything like the bastions of, self defence. It's not their focus, it's not their role, it's not their need, and it's not their method. Military and LEO groups are concerned with going into danger, engaging, arresting and subduing or terminating targets, and so on. Self defence is kinda the opposite, frankly. And if you can't see the difference between them, you and I are going to simply go round in circles again.

That said, I've seen a number of things in LEO training that would, honestly, just get you killed. And as far as BJJ in Military use, do you know why it's there? It isn't for combative effectiveness, you know. It's there because the training methods allow a relatively safe competitive training method designed to engender an aggressive attitude, physical fitness, and bonding between the soldiers. One of the Machado BJJ Black Belts (John Wills) here in Australia went over to the US (Florida, I believe) to give a presentation to the Marines stationed there, along with a number of other martial art instructors, to see who would get to put together a training program for the guys. John was picked. But, as John himself said, it was nothing to do with the applicability of the system he was teaching, or it's effectiveness, it was because he knew how to present to the Marines properly, and they gelled with his approach better than the stiff, regimented delivery of other instructors.

Military or LEO adoption doesn't mean much unless you know why it was adopted in the first place. These have nothing to do with self defence.

And, to clarify, the entire approach that Royce presented was against a striking attack, and universally involved a complicated lock/tie up (which would not be easy, if at all possible, under the effects of adrenaline), which tied up at least one of your legs, and most often both arms, and always left you pinned underneath the opponent but still open to their friends kicking you. In classes, I was often told that the school I was at "didn't train for competition", yet "if you don't have your knee there, you won't get the points", and the instructors credentials were based around his Pan Pacific wins. Nothing to do with self defence save lip service.

PS: Just went through the link you put there. The marketing hyperbole is incredible, really ("After the UFC took the world by storm in 1993, people all over the world realized that Gracie Jiu-Jitsu was the only system that would give someone a realistic chance against a larger, more athletic opponent".. I'm sorry, "the only system"? Give me a break...). And as far as LEO's using it, a big part of their job involves apprehending people, and that often involves taking them to the ground. Self defence doesn't.

So Chris,your opinion differs from some of the most lethal and experienced and seasoned real world practitioners of the very same SD and faaaarrr worse SD than you will ever eeeever face in your life.But the great thing is that not only can your opinion differ from theirs? That's your RIGHT and I respect your right to do so.Whether your opinion has a more airtight combat foundation or whether its anywhere near as valid under the circumstances that these elite warriors and law enforcement units find themselves operating and facing real intense issues is another matter entirely.

I really don't think you get the distinction between self defence and combat, to be honest. What you are describing is not self defence, not matter how "faaarrrr worse" it is.

Your grasp of martial arts history is similarly suspect. Every army the world over practiced martial arts. The SPIRITUAL AND PERSONAL DEVELOPMENT ASPECTS became more pronounced with civilian martial arts training,aaaannnd the desire of various governments to remain in power conflicting with (at times) various civilian or nongovernmental groups wishing to maintain their liberty also profoundly affected the nongovernmental martial arts. I strongly suspect that the capoeiristas who defied Brazil and Portugal to such an extent that the Portuguese government entered negotiations with them about rewarding them specific autonomy similar to what the Native Americans and Amish (to a lesser degree) enjoy here in the USA would find your contentions laughable.The Shaolin Monastery warriors might find a guffaw or five to be had from your position too. The mavya--(who are the Indians who inherited some African martial arts once they travelled from Africa to India)--who are the "boxers" who gave rise to the word "mavya" which in turn is the ancient root for the word Muay (as in Muay Boran,Muay Thai,etc) along with the Muay Boran and Krabi Kabong warriors might find themselves joining in to chortle.The moro moros who came from many regions including India to what is now the Phillipines,combined their martial arts into what later became known as Kali might join in for a knee slapping yukk or two.

Of all the people on this forum that you don't need to educate on martial arts history, I'd be up amongst the top. No army in the world practiced martial arts. It would take too long, be too complicated and too involved, be rather counter-productive, and too expensive. You're buying too much into the romanticised histories there. And seriously, don't get me started on your "Shaolin Monastery warriors" comment....

Martial arts came from war.The martial arts survived because they worked in war.They went through various refinements and sometimes were tragically lost as they entered the civilian realm...but all of them work for self defense.And all of them had to refine,develope,and adapt--that is to say functionally innovate--in order to be crafted in the first place and survive until the present day.Furthermore,your definition of chuan fa is faulty. chaun fa literally means MOUNTAIN FIST,and WUSHU means MILITARY ART or its rough equivalent.And to be clear? "fist method" is ALSO a MARTIAL ART. While we're on the subject,as far as boxing is concerned? I think that the Greeks and ancient Africans would have a word or two to say about that.

Chuan Fa does not mean "Mountain Fist". The characters are 拳 (Chuan) 法 (fa), and translate as "fist (chuan) method (fa)". The same characters pronounced in Japanese are Kenpo 拳法. It is a categorisation of a form of martial art, it is not a martial art itself (Ed Parkers American Kenpo is, Shorinji Kenpo is, Kenpo by itself is not a distinct system). As far as your take on boxing and the ancient Greeks, you really don't seem to get what you're arguing there....

There is little accurate in this entire paragraph, honestly, and shows that your understanding of the history of a wider range of arts is rather lacking. Again, I'm not someone needing education on this subject.

It seems as if you're making the classic mistake that many of the most ardent practitioners of what they think is RBSD make: they conflate athletic attributes with sport performance.They seem to be wholly unaware of the overwhelming fact and thousands of years of legendary history proclaiming the overwhelming imminence of high performance self-defense athletics. Whic segues into the following point: yes I know that my athletic ability oftentimes isn't something that my students share.I don't train them assuming that their clones of me.My response to you was more specific: you indicated that you would have succeeded in knifing me. I doubt that you would do such a thing,as I doubt that you have the experience skill and attributes to pull it off against me as most people don't have the requisite mix.That again is not arrogance on my part,as I could be wrong...but based upon what you just posted? Your (imo) horriffic misassessment of the Gracie's self-defense skill? Your highly flawed recollection of martial history? I gain confidence in my previous assessment being accurate.Btw,the speeds I gave are Olympic calibur elite and the fact that you've never been on the receiving end of an iaido sensei's draw speaks soooo many volumes about what you've NOT faced that I won't get into it.Suffice it to say that you've done soooo much damage to your previous contentions that now your position would have to be infinitely more sturdy than it currently is to UPGRADE to the condition of post-atomic Nagasaki.

Son, I don't think you quite get what my experience, skill, and attributes actually are, nor what would be required. As for the rest of this paragraph, you have shown a lack of understanding of what self defence actually is, given romanticised counters to actual martial history, and tried to correct me incorrectly. And who on earth said I haven't gone up against an Iaido sensei? I train in Iai, Ras. A couple of different forms, actually. What I was getting at was that you would have known that the attack was coming (amongst other aspects), which would have aided in you evading the first cut or two. As I said, not relevant or impressive in these occasions. And if you're at Olympic caliber elite level in your speed, uh, why aren't you an actual athlete? Seriously, how am I not supposed to take this as arrogance?

Regarding the grip...which to me is the main point...we partially agree. Basically you say that we should always enter with your recommended method. I disagree but I strongly agree that the variant that you propose is highly functional and desirable,as I use it myself.I don't think that my method is a desperation method and those persons who utilize my method--something which you acknowledge that you don't do--also agree.Recall...for clarity's sake...that my method encompasses yours,not the other way around. I have,in essence,twice the arsenal that you do and the videos that I've shown prove beyond a doubt that the approach works. Now you may not PREFER my approach,but IT'S FUNCTIONALITY is BEYOND DISPUTE. The special units,the highly skilled specialized practitioners,etc. use it daily against top flight full tilt boogie resistance...which is true and cool to say,but my own experience with it wholly guts your position.And since you don't use my method (which let us not forget also encompasses yours)? You're not in a position to offer from experience what it does and doesn't do; you offer an opinion which isn't girded by mat or street experience or both,whereas mine has all of them.And that's cool man. We can agree to disagree on that point and still be amicable towards one another. BUT...and here's a big "but"...I think that a person who has positions as strongly and articulately held as yours should be able to step up to the plate as it were and put his knife skills where his mouth (er,POSTS) are and show us the real deal. Or at least YOUR real deal.You're able to make direct empirical statements about my movements and draw opinions and inferences--however much I may agree or disagree with them,however much they may vary from or be in accordance with reality---because I put myself out there to be seen.Frankly I have the skill will resources and nuts to step up. When making points as insistent as yours are,sir,it would be much to your and our benefit for you to step up like I did. Put your knife where your mouth is. For instance...my position is that one of the major reasons to NOT do as you recommend in the way that you recommend is that you wholly ignore the almost 100% certainty that you'll get knocked and clocked by the other limb.In the S.T.A.B. video,this reality is repeatedly shown. My version provides a plethora of easy go-to (flow to) techs that happen organically very quickly and very effectively--including the one and only method that you champion--addresses the attacker(s) other limbs and deals with them. Have you fought a guy with a bottle,disarmed him,dealt with him,had his buddy rush you,dealt with him,and then dealt with his other homeboy who was rockin a bottle,disarmed him--only to have him pull a knife in the midst of you disarming his bottle? I have? I've had the same experience with an inebriated WOMAN. She took a swing with her bottle,I disarm her...ZING. Out comes the knife.And women tend to SLASH not STAB.Your inflexible method would get me you and others hurt and/or killed under those circumstance if we did as you recommended.Imo at any rate.My techs "win" under those circumstances,that's why I'm still here to post about it.

When it comes to my putting a video up, the techniques are not mine, and I am not putting them up without permission. That's really the only thing that would stop me, honestly, I have more than full confidence in them (and, I note, mine is the preferred method in the overwhelming majority of clips provided, the only one using yours is the flawed one against the shock knife). One more time, yours can work, but it's lower return and higher risk than it needs to be. End of story, really. I'm glad it worked for you, but it's not what you're making it out to be. And far from "BEYOND DISPUTE".

 

[ATACX GYM]

And I'll go so far as to say that this is simply a case of people jumping on the bandwagon. 1993, you rarely saw any MA school teaching grappling/MMA/BJJ. Today....everyone offers it. Hell, I was on FB today, as saw a Bujinkan Ninjutsu guy teaching Marines. Yes, I've seen shows in which the military is doing grappling. Yes, this is important, but like I said, its merely the flavor of the month. Watch...when something 'new' comes out, everyone will put their old toys away in favor of the new ones. Amazing how many people make the claim of teaching military. Funny, because you'd figure that each respective branch would be doing the same thing, ie: Every Marine, anywhere in the US would be doing BJJ, yet you see JKD guys say they teach Marines, Ninjutsu guys saying it, everyone says it. Its all about marketing and Rorion is the king of marketing...LOL.



Like I said, each of the methods has its place. Of course, as I said, I think its also important to take into consideration, the size of the person. The guy in your clip, was, IMO, about your height, but clearly, you seem stronger. Were the bad guy, someone who was taller and stronger than you, it may not be as easy to move the guy, like you were in the clip.

No disrespect intended Ras. I think its safe to say that you and I have engaged in many good discussions, and are, for the most part, on the same page, when it comes to the way we train. Just throwing some other variables into the mix.

Whaddup MJS! I'm kinda pressed for time here,and since I pretty much agree with what you posted up here,I will only reply--speedily and shallowly for me at any rate--about the 2 on 1 and its deployment vs larger stronger opponents:

My version of the 2 on 1 allows us the option to completely redirect the attack and run,employ kick,employ the use of your opponents force and hapkido/aikido/judo/chin na style locks and breaks in addition to every form of wrestling lock,deploy our own weapons,AND employ all the other 2 on 1 aka Russian tie up variants...including the S.T.A.B. variants.Preferring one method over the other removes the benefit of being fluid enough to use both.This is--again and again and again--the trump card which should silence debate about the best way to do things when it comes to a discussion between experienced reasonable practitioners online,and would absolutely silence debate when practiced on the mat in any energetic way.Sometimes the best option isn't to engage this guy,you may have to segue immediately into instant disarms,breaks,escapes or redirection so you can get to somebody else in dire need of help...like a friend being stomped by BGs. There's nothing wrong with having all the options that you can use in front of you.It's without question the better option. It's better to have a functional tool in your toolbox and not need it than it is to NOT have a functional tool in your tool box and need it.

 

[Chris Parker]

Hi Ras, I was waiting to see if you'd come back with something else before I dealt with this, but honestly the language you're using ("this should silence debate.... the trump card..." etc) only say that you're refusing to listen to anything being said, or entertain other opinions. You have not demonstrated anything to put your grip above the one I describe (the one used in almost all the clips other than yours), and I still see all the same flaws in yours that lead it to being the less desirable option.

Simply saying over and over again "no, it isn't" doesn't really make an argument. So my real point here is that the above post is your opinion, which doesn't seem to be supported by the evidence you've given, so I didn't want you to take a non-answer as validation of your position.

 

[ATACX GYM]

Hi Ras, I was waiting to see if you'd come back with something else before I dealt with this, but honestly the language you're using ("this should silence debate.... the trump card..." etc) only say that you're refusing to listen to anything being said, or entertain other opinions. You have not demonstrated anything to put your grip above the one I describe (the one used in almost all the clips other than yours), and I still see all the same flaws in yours that lead it to being the less desirable option.

Simply saying over and over again "no, it isn't" doesn't really make an argument. So my real point here is that the above post is your opinion, which doesn't seem to be supported by the evidence you've given, so I didn't want you to take a non-answer as validation of your position.

I haven't a shred of doubt that you're right about the above posts being my opinion,just as your posts reflect your own opinion.We are very much of different opinions about what the above evidence displays,because if I understand your posts aright your position is that one variant of the 2 on 1 and ONLY ONE is the BEST METHOD (as opposed to your "preferred method").Recall that my opinion encompasses your preferred grasp aaaand provides more options for kicks,sweeps,disengagements,has better stand up striking defenses vs the other arm,allows better options for multifights,and more.The above evidence imo is very clear on that point...and borne out by the multiple strikes that the S.T.A.B. practitioners absorbed in the process of employing the variant that you employed,and the lack of strikes that's even possible to employ when my 2 on 1 arm drag AND your preferred method AND other holds from wrestling,aikido,and other places are employed.Including Burton Richardson's evidence.

When I say "absolutely silence debate" and "trump card" please read the whole statement and don't take a single phrase out of context.Say the whole thing and put it into context:"Preferring one method over the other removes the benefit of being fluid enough to use both.This is--again and again and again--the trump card which should silence debate about the best way to do things when it comes to a discussion between experienced reasonable practitioners online,and would absolutely silence debate when practiced on the mat in any energetic way."<---That IS a REASONABLE statement with loads of evidence to support it and should be immediately sensible to any experienced knife combat instructor and practitioner...even if they disagree with it.Btw,the Gracies also use a knife defense variant that I've used successfully over the years when in CQB after I've secured the 2 on 1.

See,I wasn't going to bring this point up initially about Karl Tanswell's video because I really like his stuff and employ his suggestions as part of my overall knife defense practice but look...have you noticed that the S.T.A.B. videos that he has DOES NOT address knife attacks at slightly farther than knife arm reach? All of his defenses start at very close quarters (which is quite realistic in many ways) but his defenses PRIOR to getting into his preferred 2 on 1 are suspect.Or should I say not as refined as others who start at the farther out range.Look at 1:42 of the second video,the video with that old Beach Boys' song FUN FUN FUN or whatever it's title is...and realize that he'd get knifed for that movement,BEFORE he gets to face his opponent and apply the 2 on 1.I like his stuff when in close,but there's a way to preserve a mixture of the more better "at range" defenses,the method he uses,and the methods of a few others.My primary method involves all of that plus my own experiences,and is the only one which allows the buffet of functional methods to be applied. That 2 on 1 you recommend is good, until it's a little female against a big guy.I have a crew of studens that we call the FIVE FOOTERS because they're 5 feet tall or shorter.My method allows them to redirect the attack,strike and escape or segue directly into my variant of the 2 on 1 you prefer (my variant keeps their head on the other side of the arm in order to prevent hair grabs,facilitate bites,strikes,sweeps,knees,groin strikes,kicks,stomps,and more) like this in my video right here:

as well as employ all the methods shown in the S.T.A.B. video,by the Gracies and by Burton Richardson,Paul Vunak and others.The superior at range functional entry tha I employ to a wider variety of fight ending functional options (including all of yours that you recommend) simply makes the argument overwhelming that the version I prefer has without question the greater options which will function for the wider gamut of persons who employ it.What works for me may not work for you or be a preferred method for you or others onsite,but my version provides a sufficient functional array for pretty much anyone walking and moving on their own.Functional options from hapkido and aikido to kali and gungfu to sayoc and even capoeira are there.Whatever art you practice,a functional variant of your movements are there in my approach,but absent from yours.That's a maaajor reason why I say that the method that I recommend is superior overall.

 

[Chris Parker]

I haven't a shred of doubt that you're right about the above posts being my opinion,just as your posts reflect your own opinion.We are very much of different opinions about what the above evidence displays,because if I understand your posts aright your position is that one variant of the 2 on 1 and ONLY ONE is the BEST METHOD (as opposed to your "preferred method").Recall that my opinion encompasses your preferred grasp aaaand provides more options for kicks,sweeps,disengagements,has better stand up striking defenses vs the other arm,allows better options for multifights,and more.The above evidence imo is very clear on that point...and borne out by the multiple strikes that the S.T.A.B. practitioners absorbed in the process of employing the variant that you employed,and the lack of strikes that's even possible to employ when my 2 on 1 arm drag AND your preferred method AND other holds from wrestling,aikido,and other places are employed.Including Burton Richardson's evidence.

Not quite. What I'm saying is that your version is more of a "last resort" tactic, and isn't something that should be taught as a mainstay, whereas the one that I'm suggesting is far higher return, allows much greater control, is a lot safer, and puts you in a better position. I do teach a few others, mainly "natural responce" methods, but the core of it is that one. And Burton didn't really impress me, honestly.

That said, the only real way to come to any conclusion here would be to have both of us in a room, and see who comes out on top... but that's not really practical, is it?

When I say "absolutely silence debate" and "trump card" please read the whole statement and don't take a single phrase out of context.Say the whole thing and put it into context:"Preferring one method over the other removes the benefit of being fluid enough to use both.This is--again and again and again--the trump card which should silence debate about the best way to do things when it comes to a discussion between experienced reasonable practitioners online,and would absolutely silence debate when practiced on the mat in any energetic way."<---That IS a REASONABLE statement with loads of evidence to support it and should be immediately sensible to any experienced knife combat instructor and practitioner...even if they disagree with it.Btw,the Gracies also use a knife defense variant that I've used successfully over the years when in CQB after I've secured the 2 on 1.

Oh, I read the entire thing, and took note of the "conversation stopper" phrases you were using, which indicates that you aren't open to listening to any other opinions... but, for the record, when it comes to methods such as this, having a range of options can actually be a bad thing. A limited number of high return methods are what you're actually after, other methods simply "get in the way". So, really, your take on things aren't "trump cards", nor "silencing debate", unless you don't want to listen to it. Honestly, your logic here makes conscious sense, but goes against the way people actually work.

Dear lord, that was terrible! The reasoning that they are "knife masters" because their grandfather was a "knife master" is so deeply flawed I don't know where to begin, the entry method they use only works against someone stopping their attack, the control is difficult to get into, great once it's on, but getting there is a much harder and longer journey than they seem to understand... you put that here because...?

See,I wasn't going to bring this point up initially about Karl Tanswell's video because I really like his stuff and employ his suggestions as part of my overall knife defense practice but look...have you noticed that the S.T.A.B. videos that he has DOES NOT address knife attacks at slightly farther than knife arm reach? All of his defenses start at very close quarters (which is quite realistic in many ways) but his defenses PRIOR to getting into his preferred 2 on 1 are suspect.Or should I say not as refined as others who start at the farther out range.Look at 1:42 of the second video,the video with that old Beach Boys' song FUN FUN FUN or whatever it's title is...and realize that he'd get knifed for that movement,BEFORE he gets to face his opponent and apply the 2 on 1.I like his stuff when in close,but there's a way to preserve a mixture of the more better "at range" defenses,the method he uses,and the methods of a few others.My primary method involves all of that plus my own experiences,and is the only one which allows the buffet of functional methods to be applied. That 2 on 1 you recommend is good, until it's a little female against a big guy.I have a crew of studens that we call the FIVE FOOTERS because they're 5 feet tall or shorter.My method allows them to redirect the attack,strike and escape or segue directly into my variant of the 2 on 1 you prefer (my variant keeps their head on the other side of the arm in order to prevent hair grabs,facilitate bites,strikes,sweeps,knees,groin strikes,kicks,stomps,and more) like this in my video right here:

Actually, I have a female student about 5 feet tall, if that, and it works damn well for her against a 6'10" guy.... so, uh, you're a little off there as well.

As far as Karl's distance, well, that's the common attack distance for knife attacks... so you're criticizing him for moving from a realistic distance? As far as the guy at 1:42, he doesn't have full control of the knife arm, but with the same situation you'd have more issues than he has, I have to say.

Yep, same issues again. Hadn't we already looked at that clip in this thread?

as well as employ all the methods shown in the S.T.A.B. video,by the Gracies and by Burton Richardson,Paul Vunak and others.The superior at range functional entry tha I employ to a wider variety of fight ending functional options (including all of yours that you recommend) simply makes the argument overwhelming that the version I prefer has without question the greater options which will function for the wider gamut of persons who employ it.What works for me may not work for you or be a preferred method for you or others onsite,but my version provides a sufficient functional array for pretty much anyone walking and moving on their own.Functional options from hapkido and aikido to kali and gungfu to sayoc and even capoeira are there.Whatever art you practice,a functional variant of your movements are there in my approach,but absent from yours.That's a maaajor reason why I say that the method that I recommend is superior overall.

No, the argument isn't overwhelming when you're deliberately staying in the range of the knife, and relying on such methods, thinking it's more versatile. It isn't, frankly, and just keeps you in the danger zone a lot longer. Since we started this I've played with both under a fair amount of stress (full pace unnominated attacks from my guys), and, honestly, yours leaves more of my guys killed. It's far from superior, honestly.

 

[ATACX GYM]

Not quite. What I'm saying is that your version is more of a "last resort" tactic, and isn't something that should be taught as a mainstay, whereas the one that I'm suggesting is far higher return, allows much greater control, is a lot safer, and puts you in a better position. I do teach a few others, mainly "natural responce" methods, but the core of it is that one. And Burton didn't really impress me, honestly.

That said, the only real way to come to any conclusion here would be to have both of us in a room, and see who comes out on top... but that's not really practical, is it?



Oh, I read the entire thing, and took note of the "conversation stopper" phrases you were using, which indicates that you aren't open to listening to any other opinions... but, for the record, when it comes to methods such as this, having a range of options can actually be a bad thing. A limited number of high return methods are what you're actually after, other methods simply "get in the way". So, really, your take on things aren't "trump cards", nor "silencing debate", unless you don't want to listen to it. Honestly, your logic here makes conscious sense, but goes against the way people actually work.


Dear lord, that was terrible! The reasoning that they are "knife masters" because their grandfather was a "knife master" is so deeply flawed I don't know where to begin, the entry method they use only works against someone stopping their attack, the control is difficult to get into, great once it's on, but getting there is a much harder and longer journey than they seem to understand... you put that here because...?



Actually, I have a female student about 5 feet tall, if that, and it works damn well for her against a 6'10" guy.... so, uh, you're a little off there as well.

As far as Karl's distance, well, that's the common attack distance for knife attacks... so you're criticizing him for moving from a realistic distance? As far as the guy at 1:42, he doesn't have full control of the knife arm, but with the same situation you'd have more issues than he has, I have to say.



Yep, same issues again. Hadn't we already looked at that clip in this thread?



No, the argument isn't overwhelming when you're deliberately staying in the range of the knife, and relying on such methods, thinking it's more versatile. It isn't, frankly, and just keeps you in the danger zone a lot longer. Since we started this I've played with both under a fair amount of stress (full pace unnominated attacks from my guys), and, honestly, yours leaves more of my guys killed. It's far from superior, honestly.

"Not quite. What I'm saying is that your version is more of a "last resort" tactic, and isn't something that should be taught as a mainstay, whereas the one that I'm suggesting is far higher return, allows much greater control, is a lot safer, and puts you in a better position. I do teach a few others, mainly "natural responce" methods, but the core of it is that one. And Burton didn't really impress me, honestly.

That said, the only real way to come to any conclusion here would be to have both of us in a room, and see who comes out on top... but that's not really practical, is it?"


I'm of the opinion that if you're empty handed vs a knife gun or other weapon? You're already in the "last resort" stage. Our first resort,I would presume,is not to be in this kind of situation in the first place.And that's cool that you're not impressed by Burton.We disagree there,then.As for you and I scrappin in a room? That would stray from the primary subject. We're talking about techniques and tactics,not technicians and tacticians.If we scrapped? Didn't matter who came out on top.We're talking about the utility of a technique,not the superiority of the combatants.

"Oh, I read the entire thing, and took note of the "conversation stopper" phrases you were using, which indicates that you aren't open to listening to any other opinions... but, for the record, when it comes to methods such as this, having a range of options can actually be a bad thing. A limited number of high return methods are what you're actually after, other methods simply "get in the way". So, really, your take on things aren't "trump cards", nor "silencing debate", unless you don't want to listen to it. Honestly, your logic here makes conscious sense, but goes against the way people actually work."

^^^I'm not suggesting more than 4 options,and they all flow very well from the hold that I utilize.One of the options that I recommend is the option that you prefer.Clearly we have different life experiences that influence what we would call "high return methods". I've used my method in multiple scenarios; pretty much everything except in a theater of war.I've even pulled it off in a dynamic entry as a HRSP when getting a woman and her kids away from her psycho bf who was threatening passersby and them with his humongous butcher knife.Basically? You're confident in your method,I'm confident in mine...and clearly they both work.Which is what I meant when I said in previous posts that "the FUNCTIONAL VIABILITY IS BEYOND DISPUTE" of the method that I use. You may not PREFER it,but it IS a high percentage method...just not one that you employ or prefer.Between the two of us? I would have the greater experience in using the two methods that we use(which I employ as ONE METHOD,which has been my argument all along) plus a couple more that I use and that gives me the superior functional experience in that arena. I disagree with your opinion that my idea "goes against the way people actually work" for that reason...and because I have the superior experience in deploying a method that incudes your main approach fued with practical methods that you don't use? I think that my opinion would carry more weight in this matter. But again...that is merely my own opinion.


"Dear lord, that was terrible! The reasoning that they are "knife masters" because their grandfather was a "knife master" is so deeply flawed I don't know where to begin, the entry method they use only works against someone stopping their attack, the control is difficult to get into, great once it's on, but getting there is a much harder and longer journey than they seem to understand... you put that here because...?"

I don't agree with all of the logic that these two Gracies employed,but I've used this method and it wasn't hard to get to at all.The 2 on 1 flows directly into this method.I've used it in a multifight before. I only put this method up because this was the first video I could find that demonstrated the specific hand positioning that I meant and can easily get to using the 2 on 1 when somebody is really resisting you hard.

"Actually, I have a female student about 5 feet tall, if that, and it works damn well for her against a 6'10" guy.... so, uh, you're a little off there as well.

As far as Karl's distance, well, that's the common attack distance for knife attacks... so you're criticizing him for moving from a realistic distance? As far as the guy at 1:42, he doesn't have full control of the knife arm, but with the same situation you'd have more issues than he has, I have to say."

I'd like to see video of your female 5 footer resisting the big guy when he's going full tilt boogie...and congrats to her no matter how it goes.Glad that she's taking the time to seriously study martial arts. As for Karl's distance? Man...Karl is dealing with the in-close knife attack,80-90% with the antagonists facing each other prior to the knife being deployed.Like I said,I like his stuff and have used it loooong before I heard of him.However,maaany knife fights don't start at that very close distance.What happens when you're at a longer distance and you have to scrap anyway? Your response..."As far as Karl's distance, well, that's the common attack distance for knife attacks... so you're criticizing him for moving from a realistic distance?" ...underscores exactly what I've been saying before: you gotta have the versatility to engage the knifer regardless of being in close quarters or at length. Your response seems to indicate that you don't train at distance,and your preferred method of dealing with the knife is a very poor one to utilize at distance. Stand your 5 footer about half an arm's length out from your 6'10" student and have them scrap.Like she's a victim of a "walk up jacking".Record it. She'll look much worse than this guy did:

PAUL VUNAK KNIFE DEFENSE

As she would be wholly without proficiency in employing at range techs like kicks footwork and strikes that would be needed to keep her assailant away or prior to closing the distance or counterattacking prior to entering and engaging the 2 on 1 (supposing that she could do such a thing in the first place). Our training looks like THIS but with more Judo and "rushing energy" put into it and multifights too for good measure:

And training like this imparts the versatility that isn't apparent in the approach that you recommend.We can strike at range vs weapons because we train to do so and we train the defenses against it AAAAND we train the methods that you train.As time and weather permits,I will put up video of us doing exactly that.I'll show you KIDS and YOUNG TEENS that I train doing this.It's a huge advantage over merely hoping to already be in range for the single method that you prefer and it's a huge advantage over ignoring the other vital circumstances of combat,which cannot be predicted.Your method will get people killed in a multifight,killed at range,and without any options except when they're in the most dire of circumstances...well within knife attack range...which is a LAST RESORT range to be in.We should try to avoid that if at all possible,and activate the in-close 2 on 1 you use as your base method only if escape is impossible or only possible after nuetralizing the knife wielding threat.

"No, the argument isn't overwhelming when you're deliberately staying in the range of the knife, and relying on such methods, thinking it's more versatile. It isn't, frankly, and just keeps you in the danger zone a lot longer. Since we started this I've played with both under a fair amount of stress (full pace unnominated attacks from my guys), and, honestly, yours leaves more of my guys killed. It's far from superior, honestly."

Okay then we very much disagree here too,and that's fine.To me? It's overwhelmingly apparent that not only is my method far more versatile,it's the superior one visavis immediate disengagement between the methods that you recommend and I recommend because I keep the defender at range to disengage AND cover EVERYTHING that is done in your "preferred" method. In no way do I recommend "deliberately staying in the range of the knife" and I find your suggestion that I am as interesting.Recall that my range starts at a longer range than yours and not only closes to your range,but also provides multiple methods for escape.Your method is muuuch closer in and thus requires staying in the range of the knife due to proximity far more than mine does. I know that if done properly it's very difficult to get knifed using the method that you recommend (which again is only part of what I suggest to do) but the proximity still keeps you within range of the knifer and thus the knife.Mine provides the option of at range strikes,footwork,redirection and disengaging IMMEDIATELY whereas yours STARTS WITHIN THE WORST CASE SCENARIO and pretty much stays there until matters are resolved...without nuetralizing the far arm or other limbs the attacker may employ,ignoring the likelihood of multifights,ignoring the use of ankle stomps,knees,groin strikes,ignoring the reality of at range knife attacks,and more.Again and again...my version is by definition more versatile because it covers more circumstances and scenarios.

What would you recommend your students do when approached by a knifer who ISN'T within immediate grabbing range,who already has his knife deployed,and escape ISN'T an option? Looking at your primary response,your students would have your "natural response" options and basically the banzai kamikaze charge for the 2 on 1. My students could deploy both body and environmental weapons,footwork,escape methods including the roll escape which you malign but which in reality works so well that even military units recommend that you roll WHILE UNDER GUN FIRE toward shelter if available,aaaand we cover every area of the 2 on 1 method that you champion.You deny the functionality of the options that I recommend,but that allows you to simply not address the scenarios that I and others like me actually DO address...and denial of our functionality doesn't mean that we're not functional.It just means,as you stated about my previous posts,that IN YOUR OPINION some of what I recommend isn't high percentage.Regardless,I can empirically demonstrate that my method allows me to address whole scenarios which yours fails to address...and I speak from experience here because I use your method too.And THAT'S how I discovered its inherent weaknesses.You DON'T use my method,and you HAVEN'T practiced it properly enough to discover that it's a high percentage response that is very good for the kinds of scenarios which your method CANNOT address due to its body contact prerequisites.

Which means my method is more versatile.Yes,in my opinion.

Sooo...let's go beyond the point where we're going: "my method is more realistic and more versatile because it encapsulates all of yours plus the stuff yours doesn't", "no your method is more desperation and less realistic,my method is more realistic". Okay here's a scenario for you: your 5 footer is in the ladies' bathroom. She's washing her hands at the sink,and in comes BIG BG#1,5'10" and 20 pounds,knife in hand,ski mask on. His back is to the door,which is the only exit in the bathroom.He threatens to kill her if she makes a sound and closes to rape her.What does she do? Does she employ your 2 on 1?

 

[MJS]

Whaddup MJS! I'm kinda pressed for time here,and since I pretty much agree with what you posted up here,I will only reply--speedily and shallowly for me at any rate--about the 2 on 1 and its deployment vs larger stronger opponents:

My version of the 2 on 1 allows us the option to completely redirect the attack and run,employ kick,employ the use of your opponents force and hapkido/aikido/judo/chin na style locks and breaks in addition to every form of wrestling lock,deploy our own weapons,AND employ all the other 2 on 1 aka Russian tie up variants...including the S.T.A.B. variants.Preferring one method over the other removes the benefit of being fluid enough to use both.This is--again and again and again--the trump card which should silence debate about the best way to do things when it comes to a discussion between experienced reasonable practitioners online,and would absolutely silence debate when practiced on the mat in any energetic way.Sometimes the best option isn't to engage this guy,you may have to segue immediately into instant disarms,breaks,escapes or redirection so you can get to somebody else in dire need of help...like a friend being stomped by BGs. There's nothing wrong with having all the options that you can use in front of you.It's without question the better option. It's better to have a functional tool in your toolbox and not need it than it is to NOT have a functional tool in your tool box and need it.

Hey Ras,

Like I said, I have done the 2 on 1 grip from the front. I think we can compare it to say a punch defense...we all know there're many, but I think its safe to say that we all have our favorite, bread and butter moves, that we like to do, the ones that we feel the most comfortable with. Of course, I've also said that its important to assess each situation and act accordingly. I still maintain that with a larger opponent, pulling, as you shown, may not be as easy.

 

[MJS]

See,I wasn't going to bring this point up initially about Karl Tanswell's video because I really like his stuff and employ his suggestions as part of my overall knife defense practice but look...have you noticed that the S.T.A.B. videos that he has DOES NOT address knife attacks at slightly farther than knife arm reach? All of his defenses start at very close quarters (which is quite realistic in many ways) but his defenses PRIOR to getting into his preferred 2 on 1 are suspect.Or should I say not as refined as others who start at the farther out range.Look at 1:42 of the second video,the video with that old Beach Boys' song FUN FUN FUN or whatever it's title is...and realize that he'd get knifed for that movement,BEFORE he gets to face his opponent and apply the 2 on 1.I like his stuff when in close,but there's a way to preserve a mixture of the more better "at range" defenses,the method he uses,and the methods of a few others.My primary method involves all of that plus my own experiences,and is the only one which allows the buffet of functional methods to be applied. That 2 on 1 you recommend is good, until it's a little female against a big guy.I have a crew of studens that we call the FIVE FOOTERS because they're 5 feet tall or shorter.My method allows them to redirect the attack,strike and escape or segue directly into my variant of the 2 on 1 you prefer (my variant keeps their head on the other side of the arm in order to prevent hair grabs,facilitate bites,strikes,sweeps,knees,groin strikes,kicks,stomps,and more) like this in my video right here:

IMO, the Gracie clip isn't at all impressive, and I, like Chris, disgree with what they said about their grandfather being a 'knife' master. Listening to that, it tells me that they assume that because their grandfather knew about the blade (if thats true to begin with) that they'll automatically, somehow, be experts themselves. LOL! Thats laughable at best. I've talked about this numerous times myself. Frankly, I dont give a rats behind about what my teacher could do, what his teacher could do, or what anyone else can do. No, what matters most is what *I* can do! Just because their GF did something, doesnt mean they will be 'experts'.

As for the Tanswell clip...is the 1:42 part, what you're talking about? His flaw was that he didn't have a good grip secured, but of course, nothing says that everything will go according to plan. As for defense against something slightly further than arms reach....well, from that distance, he's got to move in on me anyways, so unless he does that, he could stab and slash til he's blue in the face, he isn't gonna reach me.

 

[ATACX GYM]

Hey Ras,

Like I said, I have done the 2 on 1 grip from the front. I think we can compare it to say a punch defense...we all know there're many, but I think its safe to say that we all have our favorite, bread and butter moves, that we like to do, the ones that we feel the most comfortable with. Of course, I've also said that its important to assess each situation and act accordingly. I still maintain that with a larger opponent, pulling, as you shown, may not be as easy.

Then you and I are on the same page...and that's cool.

 

[ATACX GYM]

IMO, the Gracie clip isn't at all impressive, and I, like Chris, disgree with what they said about their grandfather being a 'knife' master. Listening to that, it tells me that they assume that because their grandfather knew about the blade (if thats true to begin with) that they'll automatically, somehow, be experts themselves. LOL! Thats laughable at best. I've talked about this numerous times myself. Frankly, I dont give a rats behind about what my teacher could do, what his teacher could do, or what anyone else can do. No, what matters most is what *I* can do! Just because their GF did something, doesnt mean they will be 'experts'.

As for the Tanswell clip...is the 1:42 part, what you're talking about? His flaw was that he didn't have a good grip secured, but of course, nothing says that everything will go according to plan. As for defense against something slightly further than arms reach....well, from that distance, he's got to move in on me anyways, so unless he does that, he could stab and slash til he's blue in the face, he isn't gonna reach me.

I'm not especially impressed by anything in the Gracie clip EXCEPT for the tech they displayed.I used this tech at a shopping plaza post-midnight while working HRSP in Compton CA near the Compton Blue Line Station at night vs a knife wielding crackhead before.It works. I linked that video cuz it was the first video that I saw that showed that tech.All that other stuff about "knife master" Helio? Whatever.I have respect for Helio and all the fighting Gracies,but I don't buy into the marketing hype.Mat work please.And they got plenty of matwork.

The flaw at 1:42 wasn't the grip imo--you're gonna have to tussle for the grip when you're giving up reach strength and stuff to your opponent--it was the footwork and lack of employment of other options besides the 2 on 1.Even AFTER the 2 on 1 was secured. If your footwork sucks? He'll close on you and stab and slash til WE'RE not "blue in the face" but DEAD in the face.Lol. But if your footwork is right and tite? He won't get close enough to hurt us,and we can dictate the terms of engagement or nonengagement. This same footwork functionalizes the deployment of low kicks and other techs that aren't the 2 on 1.However,if your arsenal is ONLY the 2 on 1? Your options and efficacy levels are similarly decreased.Imo.And when I say "your"...I mean the GENERAL "your" here.

 

[MJS]

I'm not especially impressed by anything in the Gracie clip EXCEPT for the tech they displayed.I used this tech at a shopping plaza post-midnight while working HRSP in Compton CA near the Compton Blue Line Station at night vs a knife wielding crackhead before.It works. I linked that video cuz it was the first video that I saw that showed that tech.All that other stuff about "knife master" Helio? Whatever.I have respect for Helio and all the fighting Gracies,but I don't buy into the marketing hype.Mat work please.And they got plenty of matwork.

I train the initial hit with the forearm. Man, my teacher has done that on me before....hurts like hell! LOL! From there, we work different things. That lock is something that we do, however, I primarily use when we're both empty handed.

The flaw at 1:42 wasn't the grip imo--you're gonna have to tussle for the grip when you're giving up reach strength and stuff to your opponent--it was the footwork and lack of employment of other options besides the 2 on 1.Even AFTER the 2 on 1 was secured. If your footwork sucks? He'll close on you and stab and slash til WE'RE not "blue in the face" but DEAD in the face.Lol. But if your footwork is right and tite? He won't get close enough to hurt us,and we can dictate the terms of engagement or nonengagement. This same footwork functionalizes the deployment of low kicks and other techs that aren't the 2 on 1.However,if your arsenal is ONLY the 2 on 1? Your options and efficacy levels are similarly decreased.Imo.And when I say "your"...I mean the GENERAL "your" here.

Yeah, footwork, footwork, footwork...thats the key to everything my friend.

 

[Chris Parker]

Right, let's see if we can clear up the mess of quotes there.

Not quite. What I'm saying is that your version is more of a "last resort" tactic, and isn't something that should be taught as a mainstay, whereas the one that I'm suggesting is far higher return, allows much greater control, is a lot safer, and puts you in a better position. I do teach a few others, mainly "natural responce" methods, but the core of it is that one. And Burton didn't really impress me, honestly.

That said, the only real way to come to any conclusion here would be to have both of us in a room, and see who comes out on top... but that's not really practical, is it?

I'm of the opinion that if you're empty handed vs a knife gun or other weapon? You're already in the "last resort" stage. Our first resort,I would presume,is not to be in this kind of situation in the first place.And that's cool that you're not impressed by Burton.We disagree there,then.As for you and I scrappin in a room? That would stray from the primary subject. We're talking about techniques and tactics,not technicians and tacticians.If we scrapped? Didn't matter who came out on top.We're talking about the utility of a technique,not the superiority of the combatants.

Now, you well know that I am referring to a "last resort" physical method here Ras. Some physical methods are going to be higher return, and more reliable (and safer) than others, and can be applied earlier in the sequence, provided there is enough awareness. It's when you get caught too late that you have to resort to what an instructor of mine once referred to as "oh hell!" techniques (okay, he used a different word, but the filters here wouldn't like me to use the real quote...), which is the "desperation" and "last resort" methods that I am referring to. Your method is one of these "late responce" methods, hence it being lower return, higher risk, and more desperation. And, to be frank, that actually means that when this method would most likely be applied would rob it of many of the benefits that you are extolling, making it harder to immediately pull the opponent off balance (if you are caught late, and therefore off balance yourself), as well as other aspects. And if you are early enough to catch it when still in balance, you are also early enough to move to a better, safer position, which is the method that I've been talking about, and that features in the majority of clips here.

As far as the two of us getting together, it wasn't a competition that I meant, I was referring more to my showing you (physically) what I see as the issues with your method, as well as having you show me what you feel are the issues with mine. I grab a knife and attack you, so see if you can use your responce, and then you grab a knife to see if I can use mine. That's really about the only way I can see us getting a conclusion here, honestly.

Oh, I read the entire thing, and took note of the "conversation stopper" phrases you were using, which indicates that you aren't open to listening to any other opinions... but, for the record, when it comes to methods such as this, having a range of options can actually be a bad thing. A limited number of high return methods are what you're actually after, other methods simply "get in the way". So, really, your take on things aren't "trump cards", nor "silencing debate", unless you don't want to listen to it. Honestly, your logic here makes conscious sense, but goes against the way people actually work.

^^^I'm not suggesting more than 4 options,and they all flow very well from the hold that I utilize.One of the options that I recommend is the option that you prefer.Clearly we have different life experiences that influence what we would call "high return methods". I've used my method in multiple scenarios; pretty much everything except in a theater of war.I've even pulled it off in a dynamic entry as a HRSP when getting a woman and her kids away from her psycho bf who was threatening passersby and them with his humongous butcher knife.Basically? You're confident in your method,I'm confident in mine...and clearly they both work.Which is what I meant when I said in previous posts that "the FUNCTIONAL VIABILITY IS BEYOND DISPUTE" of the method that I use. You may not PREFER it,but it IS a high percentage method...just not one that you employ or prefer.Between the two of us? I would have the greater experience in using the two methods that we use(which I employ as ONE METHOD,which has been my argument all along) plus a couple more that I use and that gives me the superior functional experience in that arena. I disagree with your opinion that my idea "goes against the way people actually work" for that reason...and because I have the superior experience in deploying a method that incudes your main approach fued with practical methods that you don't use? I think that my opinion would carry more weight in this matter. But again...that is merely my own opinion.

Even four can be too many, though. Based on average responce times, it takes about half a second to consider an option before deciding whether or not to take it. So four options gives you two seconds. That's at least two to four cuts or thrusts before you've decided on what you're going to do.

In terms of "the functional viability is beyond dispute" (really, shouting with capitals isn't really necessary, Ras, nor is the long string of letters to stretch words out... all it shows is an emotional responce, which removes strength from your argument as you are running out of actual answers), all that shows is that you managed to pull it off... but my argument is that it is still a relatively risky method to be giving students who may not possess your "Olympic athlete standards". The question you have to ask yourself as a responsible instructor is "Is this the best method I can give my students, if they find themselves in a real, life threatening situation?" And, honestly, that is not the same thing.

Finally, all your talk of your "superior experience" is rather presumptuous, don't you think? As well as discussing what practical methods I may or may not use. Just a word to the wise there. All I'm discussing is the method you are showing and endorsing in your videos, if you said that this was a rare approach, and only featured in this occasion, with you dominantly showing something else, that would be a different discussion. But that's not what you've said, it's not what's shown, and I'm actually just offering you a way to improve what you present, as I see it. You don't have to, of course, but it's an offer.

Dear lord, that was terrible! The reasoning that they are "knife masters" because their grandfather was a "knife master" is so deeply flawed I don't know where to begin, the entry method they use only works against someone stopping their attack, the control is difficult to get into, great once it's on, but getting there is a much harder and longer journey than they seem to understand... you put that here because...?

I don't agree with all of the logic that these two Gracies employed,but I've used this method and it wasn't hard to get to at all.The 2 on 1 flows directly into this method.I've used it in a multifight before. I only put this method up because this was the first video I could find that demonstrated the specific hand positioning that I meant and can easily get to using the 2 on 1 when somebody is really resisting you hard.

Again, I don't think you get what I meant there, either. The issue I saw with the Gracie clip was that the entry relied on the knife attack stopping when contact was made, allowing the transition into the lock. The lock was relatively fine (some control issues with the knife, though), but it was not an overtly realistic entry method. If you're grabbing the wrist first (your two on one), then you're not doing this technique, and as that initial control is what we're focused on, if you didn't use the same as the Gracies did there, what was the point in showing their clip?

Actually, I have a female student about 5 feet tall, if that, and it works damn well for her against a 6'10" guy.... so, uh, you're a little off there as well.

As far as Karl's distance, well, that's the common attack distance for knife attacks... so you're criticizing him for moving from a realistic distance? As far as the guy at 1:42, he doesn't have full control of the knife arm, but with the same situation you'd have more issues than he has, I have to say.

I'd like to see video of your female 5 footer resisting the big guy when he's going full tilt boogie...and congrats to her no matter how it goes.Glad that she's taking the time to seriously study martial arts. As for Karl's distance? Man...Karl is dealing with the in-close knife attack,80-90% with the antagonists facing each other prior to the knife being deployed.Like I said,I like his stuff and have used it loooong before I heard of him.However,maaany knife fights don't start at that very close distance.What happens when you're at a longer distance and you have to scrap anyway? Your response..."As far as Karl's distance, well, that's the common attack distance for knife attacks... so you're criticizing him for moving from a realistic distance?" ...underscores exactly what I've been saying before: you gotta have the versatility to engage the knifer regardless of being in close quarters or at length. Your response seems to indicate that you don't train at distance,and your preferred method of dealing with the knife is a very poor one to utilize at distance. Stand your 5 footer about half an arm's length out from your 6'10" student and have them scrap.Like she's a victim of a "walk up jacking".Record it. She'll look much worse than this guy did:

PAUL VUNAK KNIFE DEFENSE

As she would be wholly without proficiency in employing at range techs like kicks footwork and strikes that would be needed to keep her assailant away or prior to closing the distance or counterattacking prior to entering and engaging the 2 on 1 (supposing that she could do such a thing in the first place). Our training looks like THIS but with more Judo and "rushing energy" put into it and multifights too for good measure:

And training like this imparts the versatility that isn't apparent in the approach that you recommend.We can strike at range vs weapons because we train to do so and we train the defenses against it AAAAND we train the methods that you train.As time and weather permits,I will put up video of us doing exactly that.I'll show you KIDS and YOUNG TEENS that I train doing this.It's a huge advantage over merely hoping to already be in range for the single method that you prefer and it's a huge advantage over ignoring the other vital circumstances of combat,which cannot be predicted.Your method will get people killed in a multifight,killed at range,and without any options except when they're in the most dire of circumstances...well within knife attack range...which is a LAST RESORT range to be in.We should try to avoid that if at all possible,and activate the in-close 2 on 1 you use as your base method only if escape is impossible or only possible after nuetralizing the knife wielding threat.

Son, don't attempt to presume what she would or wouldn't be trained with (kicks, range control, etc), you're really just showing that you have no idea what I teach. Because, frankly, most of my guys would have significantly less ink on them... but that's to do with our tactical and training approach.

When it comes to dealing with a longer range to begin with? Are you serious with that question? I really don't even know where to start with that... if they come in from a distance, you get more time to react, but the actual methods don't really change. Again, don't presume about what we teach and train, you are way off.

Now, to the clips themselves, these show rather unrealistic training methods when it comes down to it. They also show the big issue with a lot of "free form sparring" methods, in that the actual skills aren't trained properly in the first place, so what comes out is a lot less consistent than they should be. When you say that the second one is "more like you train", and that it imparts the "versatility that isn't apparent in (my) approach", really, gotta say again, you have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to my training and teaching methods. That hasn't been the discussion here, really, and there is nothing that I've posted that could give you any real indication of the breadth of my methods. You'd find that it's probably a lot broader than yours, frankly.

No, the argument isn't overwhelming when you're deliberately staying in the range of the knife, and relying on such methods, thinking it's more versatile. It isn't, frankly, and just keeps you in the danger zone a lot longer. Since we started this I've played with both under a fair amount of stress (full pace unnominated attacks from my guys), and, honestly, yours leaves more of my guys killed. It's far from superior, honestly.

Okay then we very much disagree here too,and that's fine.To me? It's overwhelmingly apparent that not only is my method far more versatile,it's the superior one visavis immediate disengagement between the methods that you recommend and I recommend because I keep the defender at range to disengage AND cover EVERYTHING that is done in your "preferred" method. In no way do I recommend "deliberately staying in the range of the knife" and I find your suggestion that I am as interesting.Recall that my range starts at a longer range than yours and not only closes to your range,but also provides multiple methods for escape.Your method is muuuch closer in and thus requires staying in the range of the knife due to proximity far more than mine does. I know that if done properly it's very difficult to get knifed using the method that you recommend (which again is only part of what I suggest to do) but the proximity still keeps you within range of the knifer and thus the knife.Mine provides the option of at range strikes,footwork,redirection and disengaging IMMEDIATELY whereas yours STARTS WITHIN THE WORST CASE SCENARIO and pretty much stays there until matters are resolved...without nuetralizing the far arm or other limbs the attacker may employ,ignoring the likelihood of multifights,ignoring the use of ankle stomps,knees,groin strikes,ignoring the reality of at range knife attacks,and more.Again and again...my version is by definition more versatile because it covers more circumstances and scenarios.

What would you recommend your students do when approached by a knifer who ISN'T within immediate grabbing range,who already has his knife deployed,and escape ISN'T an option? Looking at your primary response,your students would have your "natural response" options and basically the banzai kamikaze charge for the 2 on 1. My students could deploy both body and environmental weapons,footwork,escape methods including the roll escape which you malign but which in reality works so well that even military units recommend that you roll WHILE UNDER GUN FIRE toward shelter if available,aaaand we cover every area of the 2 on 1 method that you champion.You deny the functionality of the options that I recommend,but that allows you to simply not address the scenarios that I and others like me actually DO address...and denial of our functionality doesn't mean that we're not functional.It just means,as you stated about my previous posts,that IN YOUR OPINION some of what I recommend isn't high percentage.Regardless,I can empirically demonstrate that my method allows me to address whole scenarios which yours fails to address...and I speak from experience here because I use your method too.And THAT'S how I discovered its inherent weaknesses.You DON'T use my method,and you HAVEN'T practiced it properly enough to discover that it's a high percentage response that is very good for the kinds of scenarios which your method CANNOT address due to its body contact prerequisites.

Which means my method is more versatile.Yes,in my opinion.

And this entire section shows me that you have a rather dangerous idea as to edged weapon assault, despite your apparent experience. In fact, let's rip this apart point by point, shall we? See if you can pick up the theme here...

To me? It's overwhelmingly apparent that not only is my method far more versatile,it's the superior one visavis immediate disengagement between the methods that you recommend and I recommend because I keep the defender at range to disengage AND cover EVERYTHING that is done in your "preferred" method.

This tells me you don't understand the range. You disengage where you are, and you're dead. You disengage where I am, and you can continue as it's far harder for the opponent to cut you (you are inside their range, not in their range... there's a big difference). Oh, and if you're finding things like this, then you're not training in my "preferred" method, as you're not understanding it. You're covering far less than I am.

In no way do I recommend "deliberately staying in the range of the knife" and I find your suggestion that I am as interesting.Recall that my range starts at a longer range than yours and not only closes to your range,but also provides multiple methods for escape.

Then why is your entire sequence done in the range of the knife? You stay out where it can cut you until the step in (at about 2 minutes in the your clip), at which point you don't have enough control over the upper arm, and are still in a fair amount of danger. And, frankly, there are not the methods of escape that you think there are present. Your evasions from that range are flawed, your entry is dangerous, and there is not enough control shown throughout the sequence. And as far as your starting out further than I do? You really don't have a clue about how I train this, Ras, presuming won't help you.

Your method is muuuch closer in and thus requires staying in the range of the knife due to proximity far more than mine does. I know that if done properly it's very difficult to get knifed using the method that you recommend (which again is only part of what I suggest to do) but the proximity still keeps you within range of the knifer and thus the knife.

My control is much closer in, yep. That's because it's, you know, safer. And easier to control a larger, stronger person. And more secure. And more versatile. And puts you in a better position for any followup, disposal, control, strike, hold, pin, break, or anything you may want. The basic principle is found in every single decent weapon defence method that exists, in the Japanese arts it has become a proverb: Under the blade is Hell, Heaven is one step forward. Basically, there are only two safe distances against a weapon, out of it's range, or inside it's functional range (where it loses functionality), not directly in it's functional range, which is where you are staying. You really aren't showing a lot of understanding of the actual realities of edged weapon assaults, again despite your apparent experience.

But again, that is my distance for the control, not the entire method.

Mine provides the option of at range strikes,footwork,redirection and disengaging IMMEDIATELY whereas yours STARTS WITHIN THE WORST CASE SCENARIO and pretty much stays there until matters are resolved...without nuetralizing the far arm or other limbs the attacker may employ,ignoring the likelihood of multifights,ignoring the use of ankle stomps,knees,groin strikes,ignoring the reality of at range knife attacks,and more.Again and again...my version is by definition more versatile because it covers more circumstances and scenarios.

Sigh... Ras, you really are showing no idea of a range of things here, including what the actual worst case scenario is (here's a clue, it involves disengaging from the distance you are at, not anything in the way I do things), as well as what my approach entails. Again, mine is rather more versatile than you seem to think, and rather more versatile, to a great degree because of the closer range, as well as the higher level of control, than your two hands on the wrist approach.

What would you recommend your students do when approached by a knifer who ISN'T within immediate grabbing range,who already has his knife deployed,and escape ISN'T an option?

Well, since you asked, the first tactic is awareness to not let them get close to you, recognise whether a weapon is present (or possibly present), and maintain distance accordingly. Next we teach evasive actions designed to maximise distance until safe to escape (which is why I can look at your leaping methods and tell you what the faults are, it's a big part of what we do), with moving in to engage something only to be considered and attempted if these early methods fail, or you cannot get enough distance. From there there are a range of entry methods (really a single principle taken and adapted to all angles of attack and entry, which involves a jamming action which can move immediately into a strike, push, or catch and control). This is all combined with an understanding of the psychology of both the attacker and defender, including the fact that moving immediately in is a highly unlikely event, and that is catered for in the methods taught.

Looking at your primary response,your students would have your "natural response" options and basically the banzai kamikaze charge for the 2 on 1.

What we have discussed is our primary control method, Ras, not our primary responce. Again, if you are unaware of what we teach and train, don't presume. You haven't been close to right yet. For instance, the timing aspect hasn't been touched on yet, which is to move in pretty much straight after one attack has gone past, and the opponent is retrieving their blade for a second (or third) attack, timing it "between" the actions. That subtlety is a key aspect that makes our approach safer and easier, but if you don't get it, that's just showing that you don't train it the same way.

My students could deploy both body and environmental weapons,footwork,escape methods including the roll escape which you malign but which in reality works so well that even military units recommend that you roll WHILE UNDER GUN FIRE toward shelter if available,aaaand we cover every area of the 2 on 1 method that you champion.

Oh, dear lord, Ras, context is key, you know. Rolling under gunfire is good and standard, mainly due to the dominant firing height that almost everyone adopts. Rolling under a knife attack at that close range means you get stabbed as you roll, or as you get up. Again, man, rolling is a big thing for us, I'm very aware of it's uses and limitations.

And if your comments here are any indication, you don't cover anywhere near "every area" of my controlling method, as you seem to be missing huge sections of understanding about it.

You deny the functionality of the options that I recommend,but that allows you to simply not address the scenarios that I and others like me actually DO address...and denial of our functionality doesn't mean that we're not functional.

Find me where I've said your approach is inherently non-functional. I've said that it can work a number of times, however that it is not what I would give students if I wanted to give them the best preparation I could, due to the issues I have identified. And seriously, you would be incredibly hard pressed to find a scenario that you address that I don't. You are not that far beyond anyone, Ras.

It just means,as you stated about my previous posts,that IN YOUR OPINION some of what I recommend isn't high percentage.

Your method of controlling the knife, really. And if that isn't high percentage, and fails, what follows it is of little consequence, wouldn't you say?

Regardless,I can empirically demonstrate that my method allows me to address whole scenarios which yours fails to address...and I speak from experience here because I use your method too.

No, you can't. Firstly, you have no idea what scenarios I can or cannot address (particularly based on your comments here), and secondly what you are stating is not "empirically demonstrating" anything, it is subjectively demonstrating. And even in that there are quite a few issues that remain.

Oh, and if you used my method, actually used it, you wouldn't make the comments you have here. So I don't think you do.

And THAT'S how I discovered its inherent weaknesses.You DON'T use my method,and you HAVEN'T practiced it properly enough to discover that it's a high percentage response that is very good for the kinds of scenarios which your method CANNOT address due to its body contact prerequisites.

This level of presumption doesn't help you, Ras. There is nothing that you have mentioned that is not addressed in my method, as well as more. And yes, I have practiced your method. You would not appear to be in a position to state anything of the kind here.

Sooo...let's go beyond the point where we're going: "my method is more realistic and more versatile because it encapsulates all of yours plus the stuff yours doesn't", "no your method is more desperation and less realistic,my method is more realistic". Okay here's a scenario for you: your 5 footer is in the ladies' bathroom. She's washing her hands at the sink,and in comes BIG BG#1,5'10" and 20 pounds,knife in hand,ski mask on. His back is to the door,which is the only exit in the bathroom.He threatens to kill her if she makes a sound and closes to rape her.What does she do? Does she employ your 2 on 1?

Depending on the circumstances, how the attack plays out etc, yes, I'd certainly hope she would. And I'd hope that she stayed away from yours unless she wanted to be killed. But, to clarify, that depends on how the attack played out. Diving for the weapon is not how these methods work, and is not how they are drilled. If all he's doing is holding the knife to threaten and gain compliance, there are other methods used... but the control is the same.

These vague examples don't prove anything, though, Ras, and it's a poor excuse for debate.

I'm not especially impressed by anything in the Gracie clip EXCEPT for the tech they displayed.I used this tech at a shopping plaza post-midnight while working HRSP in Compton CA near the Compton Blue Line Station at night vs a knife wielding crackhead before.It works. I linked that video cuz it was the first video that I saw that showed that tech.All that other stuff about "knife master" Helio? Whatever.I have respect for Helio and all the fighting Gracies,but I don't buy into the marketing hype.Mat work please.And they got plenty of matwork.

Yeah, they have plenty of matwork, but how much against knife? And the technique had issues, mainly on it's entry methods. If all you were meaning was the hold, that wasn't what we are discussing here, so it didn't have relevance. If you mean the entry method, that is a different one again to what we are discussing, so the relevance was limited. And I wasn't particularly impressed with anything in the clip at all, but then again I'm not much of a beach person.

The flaw at 1:42 wasn't the grip imo--you're gonna have to tussle for the grip when you're giving up reach strength and stuff to your opponent--it was the footwork and lack of employment of other options besides the 2 on 1.Even AFTER the 2 on 1 was secured. If your footwork sucks? He'll close on you and stab and slash til WE'RE not "blue in the face" but DEAD in the face.Lol. But if your footwork is right and tite? He won't get close enough to hurt us,and we can dictate the terms of engagement or nonengagement. This same footwork functionalizes the deployment of low kicks and other techs that aren't the 2 on 1.However,if your arsenal is ONLY the 2 on 1? Your options and efficacy levels are similarly decreased.Imo.And when I say "your"...I mean the GENERAL "your" here.

And this tells me that you don't understand what you were looking at.

 

[ATACX GYM]

Right, let's see if we can clear up the mess of quotes there.



Now, you well know that I am referring to a "last resort" physical method here Ras. Some physical methods are going to be higher return, and more reliable (and safer) than others, and can be applied earlier in the sequence, provided there is enough awareness. It's when you get caught too late that you have to resort to what an instructor of mine once referred to as "oh hell!" techniques (okay, he used a different word, but the filters here wouldn't like me to use the real quote...), which is the "desperation" and "last resort" methods that I am referring to. Your method is one of these "late responce" methods, hence it being lower return, higher risk, and more desperation. And, to be frank, that actually means that when this method would most likely be applied would rob it of many of the benefits that you are extolling, making it harder to immediately pull the opponent off balance (if you are caught late, and therefore off balance yourself), as well as other aspects. And if you are early enough to catch it when still in balance, you are also early enough to move to a better, safer position, which is the method that I've been talking about, and that features in the majority of clips here.

As far as the two of us getting together, it wasn't a competition that I meant, I was referring more to my showing you (physically) what I see as the issues with your method, as well as having you show me what you feel are the issues with mine. I grab a knife and attack you, so see if you can use your responce, and then you grab a knife to see if I can use mine. That's really about the only way I can see us getting a conclusion here, honestly.



Even four can be too many, though. Based on average responce times, it takes about half a second to consider an option before deciding whether or not to take it. So four options gives you two seconds. That's at least two to four cuts or thrusts before you've decided on what you're going to do.

In terms of "the functional viability is beyond dispute" (really, shouting with capitals isn't really necessary, Ras, nor is the long string of letters to stretch words out... all it shows is an emotional responce, which removes strength from your argument as you are running out of actual answers), all that shows is that you managed to pull it off... but my argument is that it is still a relatively risky method to be giving students who may not possess your "Olympic athlete standards". The question you have to ask yourself as a responsible instructor is "Is this the best method I can give my students, if they find themselves in a real, life threatening situation?" And, honestly, that is not the same thing.

Finally, all your talk of your "superior experience" is rather presumptuous, don't you think? As well as discussing what practical methods I may or may not use. Just a word to the wise there. All I'm discussing is the method you are showing and endorsing in your videos, if you said that this was a rare approach, and only featured in this occasion, with you dominantly showing something else, that would be a different discussion. But that's not what you've said, it's not what's shown, and I'm actually just offering you a way to improve what you present, as I see it. You don't have to, of course, but it's an offer.



Again, I don't think you get what I meant there, either. The issue I saw with the Gracie clip was that the entry relied on the knife attack stopping when contact was made, allowing the transition into the lock. The lock was relatively fine (some control issues with the knife, though), but it was not an overtly realistic entry method. If you're grabbing the wrist first (your two on one), then you're not doing this technique, and as that initial control is what we're focused on, if you didn't use the same as the Gracies did there, what was the point in showing their clip?



Son, don't attempt to presume what she would or wouldn't be trained with (kicks, range control, etc), you're really just showing that you have no idea what I teach. Because, frankly, most of my guys would have significantly less ink on them... but that's to do with our tactical and training approach.

When it comes to dealing with a longer range to begin with? Are you serious with that question? I really don't even know where to start with that... if they come in from a distance, you get more time to react, but the actual methods don't really change. Again, don't presume about what we teach and train, you are way off.

Now, to the clips themselves, these show rather unrealistic training methods when it comes down to it. They also show the big issue with a lot of "free form sparring" methods, in that the actual skills aren't trained properly in the first place, so what comes out is a lot less consistent than they should be. When you say that the second one is "more like you train", and that it imparts the "versatility that isn't apparent in (my) approach", really, gotta say again, you have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to my training and teaching methods. That hasn't been the discussion here, really, and there is nothing that I've posted that could give you any real indication of the breadth of my methods. You'd find that it's probably a lot broader than yours, frankly.


And this entire section shows me that you have a rather dangerous idea as to edged weapon assault, despite your apparent experience. In fact, let's rip this apart point by point, shall we? See if you can pick up the theme here...



This tells me you don't understand the range. You disengage where you are, and you're dead. You disengage where I am, and you can continue as it's far harder for the opponent to cut you (you are inside their range, not in their range... there's a big difference). Oh, and if you're finding things like this, then you're not training in my "preferred" method, as you're not understanding it. You're covering far less than I am.



Then why is your entire sequence done in the range of the knife? You stay out where it can cut you until the step in (at about 2 minutes in the your clip), at which point you don't have enough control over the upper arm, and are still in a fair amount of danger. And, frankly, there are not the methods of escape that you think there are present. Your evasions from that range are flawed, your entry is dangerous, and there is not enough control shown throughout the sequence. And as far as your starting out further than I do? You really don't have a clue about how I train this, Ras, presuming won't help you.



My control is much closer in, yep. That's because it's, you know, safer. And easier to control a larger, stronger person. And more secure. And more versatile. And puts you in a better position for any followup, disposal, control, strike, hold, pin, break, or anything you may want. The basic principle is found in every single decent weapon defence method that exists, in the Japanese arts it has become a proverb: Under the blade is Hell, Heaven is one step forward. Basically, there are only two safe distances against a weapon, out of it's range, or inside it's functional range (where it loses functionality), not directly in it's functional range, which is where you are staying. You really aren't showing a lot of understanding of the actual realities of edged weapon assaults, again despite your apparent experience.

But again, that is my distance for the control, not the entire method.



Sigh... Ras, you really are showing no idea of a range of things here, including what the actual worst case scenario is (here's a clue, it involves disengaging from the distance you are at, not anything in the way I do things), as well as what my approach entails. Again, mine is rather more versatile than you seem to think, and rather more versatile, to a great degree because of the closer range, as well as the higher level of control, than your two hands on the wrist approach.



Well, since you asked, the first tactic is awareness to not let them get close to you, recognise whether a weapon is present (or possibly present), and maintain distance accordingly. Next we teach evasive actions designed to maximise distance until safe to escape (which is why I can look at your leaping methods and tell you what the faults are, it's a big part of what we do), with moving in to engage something only to be considered and attempted if these early methods fail, or you cannot get enough distance. From there there are a range of entry methods (really a single principle taken and adapted to all angles of attack and entry, which involves a jamming action which can move immediately into a strike, push, or catch and control). This is all combined with an understanding of the psychology of both the attacker and defender, including the fact that moving immediately in is a highly unlikely event, and that is catered for in the methods taught.



What we have discussed is our primary control method, Ras, not our primary responce. Again, if you are unaware of what we teach and train, don't presume. You haven't been close to right yet. For instance, the timing aspect hasn't been touched on yet, which is to move in pretty much straight after one attack has gone past, and the opponent is retrieving their blade for a second (or third) attack, timing it "between" the actions. That subtlety is a key aspect that makes our approach safer and easier, but if you don't get it, that's just showing that you don't train it the same way.



Oh, dear lord, Ras, context is key, you know. Rolling under gunfire is good and standard, mainly due to the dominant firing height that almost everyone adopts. Rolling under a knife attack at that close range means you get stabbed as you roll, or as you get up. Again, man, rolling is a big thing for us, I'm very aware of it's uses and limitations.

And if your comments here are any indication, you don't cover anywhere near "every area" of my controlling method, as you seem to be missing huge sections of understanding about it.



Find me where I've said your approach is inherently non-functional. I've said that it can work a number of times, however that it is not what I would give students if I wanted to give them the best preparation I could, due to the issues I have identified. And seriously, you would be incredibly hard pressed to find a scenario that you address that I don't. You are not that far beyond anyone, Ras.



Your method of controlling the knife, really. And if that isn't high percentage, and fails, what follows it is of little consequence, wouldn't you say?



No, you can't. Firstly, you have no idea what scenarios I can or cannot address (particularly based on your comments here), and secondly what you are stating is not "empirically demonstrating" anything, it is subjectively demonstrating. And even in that there are quite a few issues that remain.

Oh, and if you used my method, actually used it, you wouldn't make the comments you have here. So I don't think you do.



This level of presumption doesn't help you, Ras. There is nothing that you have mentioned that is not addressed in my method, as well as more. And yes, I have practiced your method. You would not appear to be in a position to state anything of the kind here.



Depending on the circumstances, how the attack plays out etc, yes, I'd certainly hope she would. And I'd hope that she stayed away from yours unless she wanted to be killed. But, to clarify, that depends on how the attack played out. Diving for the weapon is not how these methods work, and is not how they are drilled. If all he's doing is holding the knife to threaten and gain compliance, there are other methods used... but the control is the same.

These vague examples don't prove anything, though, Ras, and it's a poor excuse for debate.



Yeah, they have plenty of matwork, but how much against knife? And the technique had issues, mainly on it's entry methods. If all you were meaning was the hold, that wasn't what we are discussing here, so it didn't have relevance. If you mean the entry method, that is a different one again to what we are discussing, so the relevance was limited. And I wasn't particularly impressed with anything in the clip at all, but then again I'm not much of a beach person.



And this tells me that you don't understand what you were looking at.

See,all of this above is a wonderful,persuasive,cogent answer. Very reasonable,sensible,detailed...

...except that it lacks the number one difference that makes the difference: the "show and prove factor". I could easily rebut all of the above,as there are gaping holes in the "real world context" in much of what you said,and there are sizeable portions of what you said that I agree with. However,the final difference here is precisely the kind of thing that makes the difference between those say..."commercial noncontact Kenpo" or "commercial noncontact whatever" self defense schools and those moderate to high contact schools who are more hardcore.That difference,plainly,is the ability willingness and determination to empirically demonstrate one's skills,knowledge,drills,hypothesis,postulations,etc. ragning from step by step instruction to graduated levels of more and more intense resistance,and put it out there for the world to see,critique,ignore,and/or rave about.Purely on the merits of what is shown.To step up and use the multimedia mediums and physically show the differences which MAKE the difference.When it comes down to you and I,Chris,you have made it clear that--due to whatever agreements and/or conventions you have made with your instructor--you are apparently not allowed to demonstrate your self-defense techs on video. This,frankly,makes me INTENSELY skeptical of everything else that flew forth from your posts...because you could make literally any assertion,but have given yourself the ultimate out so you don't ever have to prove the smallest scintilla of them.

Am I saying for a fact that you can't do what you say you can? Nope. I hope you CAN do what you say you can. The difference is...I can PROVE that I can will have and shall again do what I said I can do.Merely by uploading a video. I mean,cell phones have youtube apps man. You could teach your friends a few moves and have THEM do some things that are uniquely your own,but based upon the principles that you learned.This way you miiiight be able to sidestep any binding conventions and maintain your integrity honesty and honor,yet empirically display your position for the edification of the thousands of us here on MartialTalk and wherever else you might frequent. If you choose not to do so? Fine I fully respect your position...but that places you squarely in the "commercial noncontact sparring dojo" predicament again: you are never in a position to show and prove what you do actually works.And I am.And I do. Sooo...when contrasted with someone who so strenuously and eloquently disagrees,I'm placed in a position wherein I can make a video response to your contentions and all you have to do is watch it and craft a cogent post of a response that sounds plausible...to anybody who's not actually out there putting in work.Especially those who are putting in work and putting it on video. For instance,I would genuinely like to know Burton Richardson's responses to your criticisms of his knife work.I've know Burton since prior to the L.A. RIOTS,when his school was on Pacific Avenue in Long Beach CA. He most definitely can handle himself with a knife,and I'd think his responses to some of the initially cogent appearing criticisms that you and others laid on his videos would be quite...educational.Especially for you.

See...I could do a video that soundly thrashes all of the above contentions that you made. And since you don't have to actually demonstrate or spar with your techs on video live, as it were (lol)? You could craft any amount of rational great sounding posts that flat out will NOT work the way you deem and claim they will.Or maybe...best case scenario for you...they will work EXACTLY the way you say they will.But nobody will be the wiser since you can't "show and prove" due to your...unusual?...convention with your instructor. And the whole reason I'm even on this site is because not only do I "show and prove"? I "show and prove" quite well.

Soooo...let's agree to disagree on this one. Sound reasonable?

 

[Cyriacus]

See,all of this above is a wonderful,persuasive,cogent answer. Very reasonable,sensible,detailed...

...except that it lacks the number one difference that makes the difference: the "show and prove factor". I could easily rebut all of the above,as there are gaping holes in the "real world context" in much of what you said,and there are sizeable portions of what you said that I agree with. However,the final difference here is precisely the kind of thing that makes the difference between those say..."commercial noncontact Kenpo" or "commercial noncontact whatever" self defense schools and those moderate to high contact schools who are more hardcore.That difference,plainly,is the ability willingness and determination to empirically demonstrate one's skills,knowledge,drills,hypothesis,postulations,etc. ragning from step by step instruction to graduated levels of more and more intense resistance,and put it out there for the world to see,critique,ignore,and/or rave about.Purely on the merits of what is shown.To step up and use the multimedia mediums and physically show the differences which MAKE the difference.When it comes down to you and I,Chris,you have made it clear that--due to whatever agreements and/or conventions you have made with your instructor--you are apparently not allowed to demonstrate your self-defense techs on video. This,frankly,makes me INTENSELY skeptical of everything else that flew forth from your posts...because you could make literally any assertion,but have given yourself the ultimate out so you don't ever have to prove the smallest scintilla of them.

To be fair, some Organisations do have Tenets which entail this. The more Traditionalistic (Depending on Origin), the more so.

Where I currently Train, for example, that would be; "...and never show off my Knowledge in the Art."
Which is right out of the Pledge everyone Recites at the end of every Class.
And ive seen Books that cite similar Lines back to the 50s.
Now, I have a feeling this stems from back when not many regular Civilians were not Trained or barely even Aware of such things. However, I for one Respect it for what it is, out of Respect for the Art and Organisation.

Now, this doesnt mean one cannot Talk about things. It just means you cannot Show People.

I can see how you might be Skeptical at first, but like I say; I imagine such things go back a lot of Years.
Personally, I wouldnt mind showing anything I know to other Martial Artists - However as mentioned; Out of Respect for the Art and Organisation, I choose not to.

The Main Reason im saying this, is to offer Retrospective.
I can see where youre coming from Debate wise, but its worth remembering why some Older Styles might still entail Secrecy, for reasons other than trying to obfuscate (By Definition, it kind of is to Obfuscate. Just not by a standard definition) and self promote.

Contact Wise; It isnt exactly safe to perform Full Contact with Strikes designed to Kill. Much in the same way that you cannot practice Thrusting someones Throat. Or Elbowing their Kidneys.
There are many ways to look at these things, and many conclusions one can draw.
But I feel a better way of approaching this, would simply be to Focus more on the Flaws, and allow those Flaws to be answered. Since if they are Valid Flaws in Mr Parkers Methodology, then He can Correct them, subsequent of being aware of them.

Just My Contribution.

 

[mook jong man]

I understand exactly what Chris Parker is talking about and quite frankly I agree with him , there is no need for him to demonstrate anything on video for you or anyone else for that matter.

 

[Chris Parker]

See,all of this above is a wonderful,persuasive,cogent answer. Very reasonable,sensible,detailed...

...except that it lacks the number one difference that makes the difference: the "show and prove factor". I could easily rebut all of the above,as there are gaping holes in the "real world context" in much of what you said,and there are sizeable portions of what you said that I agree with. However,the final difference here is precisely the kind of thing that makes the difference between those say..."commercial noncontact Kenpo" or "commercial noncontact whatever" self defense schools and those moderate to high contact schools who are more hardcore.That difference,plainly,is the ability willingness and determination to empirically demonstrate one's skills,knowledge,drills,hypothesis,postulations,et c. ragning from step by step instruction to graduated levels of more and more intense resistance,and put it out there for the world to see,critique,ignore,and/or rave about.Purely on the merits of what is shown.To step up and use the multimedia mediums and physically show the differences which MAKE the difference.When it comes down to you and I,Chris,you have made it clear that--due to whatever agreements and/or conventions you have made with your instructor--you are apparently not allowed to demonstrate your self-defense techs on video. This,frankly,makes me INTENSELY skeptical of everything else that flew forth from your posts...because you could make literally any assertion,but have given yourself the ultimate out so you don't ever have to prove the smallest scintilla of them.

Am I saying for a fact that you can't do what you say you can? Nope. I hope you CAN do what you say you can. The difference is...I can PROVE that I can will have and shall again do what I said I can do.Merely by uploading a video. I mean,cell phones have youtube apps man. You could teach your friends a few moves and have THEM do some things that are uniquely your own,but based upon the principles that you learned.This way you miiiight be able to sidestep any binding conventions and maintain your integrity honesty and honor,yet empirically display your position for the edification of the thousands of us here on MartialTalk and wherever else you might frequent. If you choose not to do so? Fine I fully respect your position...but that places you squarely in the "commercial noncontact sparring dojo" predicament again: you are never in a position to show and prove what you do actually works.And I am.And I do. Sooo...when contrasted with someone who so strenuously and eloquently disagrees,I'm placed in a position wherein I can make a video response to your contentions and all you have to do is watch it and craft a cogent post of a response that sounds plausible...to anybody who's not actually out there putting in work.Especially those who are putting in work and putting it on video. For instance,I would genuinely like to know Burton Richardson's responses to your criticisms of his knife work.I've know Burton since prior to the L.A. RIOTS,when his school was on Pacific Avenue in Long Beach CA. He most definitely can handle himself with a knife,and I'd think his responses to some of the initially cogent appearing criticisms that you and others laid on his videos would be quite...educational.Especially for you.

See...I could do a video that soundly thrashes all of the above contentions that you made. And since you don't have to actually demonstrate or spar with your techs on video live, as it were (lol)? You could craft any amount of rational great sounding posts that flat out will NOT work the way you deem and claim they will.Or maybe...best case scenario for you...they will work EXACTLY the way you say they will.But nobody will be the wiser since you can't "show and prove" due to your...unusual?...convention with your instructor. And the whole reason I'm even on this site is because not only do I "show and prove"? I "show and prove" quite well.

Soooo...let's agree to disagree on this one. Sound reasonable?

So let's get this straight.... in order to be taken seriously in a critique of the methods that you're demonstrating on your clip, I'd need to put out a clip myself? That would change the critique of your actions how, exactly? I might note that you have been very vague in your criticisms of my approach (labeling it as "less versatile", without saying why, and so on), whereas I have been as specific in my critique as I can be, pointing out exactly where and why I see issues, what the pitfalls are, and so on, but because I'm not putting a video up, that deems it all irrelevant? Really, Ras? And you don't see that as a weak argument?

In regards to my putting a video out there, let's see if we can clear that up, shall we? I have no problem putting myself on video, running through both yours and my versions of this type of technique, but there is the issue of personal representation. You are representing yourself and yourself alone, whereas I will be seen as representing my organisation and my instructor. It's not dissimilar to many traditional systems, which have rules against showing their methods to outsiders from the system (again if this is coming across as unusual to you, your understanding of martial history needs work). This is my Chief Instructors intellectual property, so it's up to him if he wants video out for public consumption... and I'm not about to put any out without his agreement... although to be frank I don't really see the need to request it as a video will only show that I can upload a video, it really provides no more credibility than that, frankly.

To illustrate:

This is a bogus ninjutsu group in Australia teaching some Scouts. The video, even of them teaching, gives no credibility to a frankly terrible display of martial arts, which is based on fantasy.

This is from a series of clips from an online show teaching the use of the sword... unfortunately, the person chosen is considered a joke in Japanese Sword Arts, who has most of his training in Chanbara foam weapon sports, and is far from an authority or credible source for Japanese Sword.

Say, here's a knife defence video, so these guys could critique your clip?

So I'm not sure what a video would achieve. Honestly, I don't have the need, or drive to be "famous" by putting videos of myself out there, I'm happy enough passing on what I've learnt to my students, who I can vet and monitor in terms of what they learn and what they get exposed to.

Honestly, so far your argument has amounted to a lot of "no it isn't" with little actual argument to cover it, other than asking for video. Sorry, Ras, that's not enough. If we were in the same place, I'd have no issue going through things with you personally, but I'm not putting my instructors material out for public consumption without his permission. If you can think of a way to send a video straight to you, then you may have a possibility.

 

[ATACX GYM]

To be fair, some Organisations do have Tenets which entail this. The more Traditionalistic (Depending on Origin), the more so.

Where I currently Train, for example, that would be; "...and never show off my Knowledge in the Art."
Which is right out of the Pledge everyone Recites at the end of every Class.
And ive seen Books that cite similar Lines back to the 50s.
Now, I have a feeling this stems from back when not many regular Civilians were not Trained or barely even Aware of such things. However, I for one Respect it for what it is, out of Respect for the Art and Organisation.

Now, this doesnt mean one cannot Talk about things. It just means you cannot Show People.

I can see how you might be Skeptical at first, but like I say; I imagine such things go back a lot of Years.
Personally, I wouldnt mind showing anything I know to other Martial Artists - However as mentioned; Out of Respect for the Art and Organisation, I choose not to.

The Main Reason im saying this, is to offer Retrospective.
I can see where youre coming from Debate wise, but its worth remembering why some Older Styles might still entail Secrecy, for reasons other than trying to obfuscate (By Definition, it kind of is to Obfuscate. Just not by a standard definition) and self promote.

Contact Wise; It isnt exactly safe to perform Full Contact with Strikes designed to Kill. Much in the same way that you cannot practice Thrusting someones Throat. Or Elbowing their Kidneys.
There are many ways to look at these things, and many conclusions one can draw.
But I feel a better way of approaching this, would simply be to Focus more on the Flaws, and allow those Flaws to be answered. Since if they are Valid Flaws in Mr Parkers Methodology, then He can Correct them, subsequent of being aware of them.

Just My Contribution.

That's a reasonable and good contribution man.Thanks. Allow me to respond to that first:

Quite a few older styles,if I recall correctly,associated with the Orient developed their tradition of secrecy due to being outlawed and oppressed by the government.Their tradition of secrecy was borne from a literal need for survival.Most of them,anyway.And many of these same older styles and stylists engaged in various challenge matches on lei tai which,IIRC,were elevated platforms for the purpose of friendly but intense sparring matches which promoted the efficacy of said older style.There were certainly specific family styles which were practiced only amongst family members for self-protection etc. etc. but those arts that survive,thrive,develope,and improve by necessity have to recruit and promote.

Contact wise,I agree that it IS dangerous to practice fatal or maiming strikes directly to the unprotected human target. However,I have a hogu and mitts so I place the mitt at or near my throat and let my students practice throat and kidney and groin shots full power,and practice light strikes at the these and other sensitive areas.A little training ingenuity can go a long way.

 

[Chris Parker]

That's a reasonable and good contribution man.Thanks. Allow me to respond to that first:

Quite a few older styles,if I recall correctly,associated with the Orient developed their tradition of secrecy due to being outlawed and oppressed by the government.Their tradition of secrecy was borne from a literal need for survival.Most of them,anyway.And many of these same older styles and stylists engaged in various challenge matches on lei tai which,IIRC,were elevated platforms for the purpose of friendly but intense sparring matches which promoted the efficacy of said older style.There were certainly specific family styles which were practiced only amongst family members for self-protection etc. etc. but those arts that survive,thrive,develope,and improve by necessity have to recruit and promote.

Contact wise,I agree that it IS dangerous to practice fatal or maiming strikes directly to the unprotected human target. However,I have a hogu and mitts so I place the mitt at or near my throat and let my students practice throat and kidney and groin shots full power,and practice light strikes at the these and other sensitive areas.A little training ingenuity can go a long way.

Wow. The number of gigantic inaccuracies in that middle section are frankly staggering, I wouldn't know where to start with correcting it....

No, the reason was nothing to do with being "outlawed".
Your take on the contests is highly romanticised and unrealistic (and strictly a more modern, as in 18 and 1900's, Chinese only concept).
Your concept on the family side of things is also way off, as is your idea of needing to recruit or promote.

Really, Ras, you were questioning my martial history and you come in with this? Sorry, mate, that takes all credibility from you there....

 

[ATACX GYM]

I understand exactly what Chris Parker is talking about and quite frankly I agree with him , there is no need for him to demonstrate anything on video for you or anyone else for that matter.

I'm not talking about a mandate here; of course he doesn't HAVE TO drop anything on video anymore than you or I do. And if you agree with him? Fine. My point is that there come a point in time wherein some form of empirical demonstrable evidence is necessary in order to put into proper perspective the specifics of the disagreement and a way to directly convey to doubters critics and dissenters the empirical evidence for the conclusions of the person/group with a different perspective. It's why THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD is so very good at conveying means to duplicate steps taken in laboratory experiments so those exact same steps can be performed again in another similarly stocked lab and produce the same results for the purposes of being scrutinized by other scientists.

What I'm saying here is that we can give the thrust parry and riposte ad infinitum without some kind of direct proveable video evidence showing the specifics of what I'm talking about and how it encompasses what Chris is talking about but so far what he's talking about does NOT encompass what I'm talking about. My position is that my techs include all of the areas that he has championed on his posts so far; his is that my position is significantly less safe,and less correct than his recommended approach. Now we can go back and forth as this very thread proves and each of us can make cogent,potent points. But the main reason why he's able to respond with such exact detail regarding my videos is that I actually HAVE VIDEOS TO DEMONSTRATE EXACT PHYSICAL ACTIONS. Not all of the things that I do...way more than that is shown on my upcoming DVDs...but he's able to specify points on my video and specific actions that I take on my video that he disagrees with because...you know...my actions are on video.

Since he is not on video he doesn't put himself out there to the degree that I have and open himself up to the specificity of critique that I do. This means that in the real world? He or anyone else could lob many a comment that can be extra specific in critical detail because my video allows for such specificity. I'm cool with that. However,when the response to criticism is rebutted to the point that responses which are primarily posted text responses are insufficient to bring the area of contention to sufficient resolution? That's when video is needed. Chris believes that my 2 on1 which encompasses his tech is flawed in areas that my and others' direct experience very emphatically shows that it's not. I believe that my approach encompasses the areas that he specified (largely in the S.T.A.B. videos) more efficiently and effectively than so far his posts specified. Note I said "specified" because he alludes to various approaches like "natural responces" which are every bit as vague insofar as proof of real world articulation and proof of direct personal expression as everything else he's specified so far.

That's where the video makes the difference. I showed a portion of what I do,from which he was able to make some very direct criticisms. He shows nothing of what he does,therefore he can simply parry criticisms about his posted approach with what amounts to "I don't do that" and "you don't know what I do" and be right...because he already stated that he WON'T show what he does on video. Well,that makes for an unfair and uneven discussion because he could constantly recast his actions to simply fall beyond the reach and purview of critique because he won't allow himself to be placed under the harsh lights of critique via video.The same could be said visavis posts. I could say: "You said this which means that" and he could say:"No I said this which means the other" and we could go round that mulberry bush for an eternity without coming close to any form of resolution or happy pacification brought about by empirical data.Because only one of us has empirical data that he can will and has shared: moi.Chris absolutely refuses to do so.Which raises my skeptical hackles in this situation. Not all situations.But this one.As that same out is usually the one used by very articulate persons who are masters of marketing and the printed word but are very poor at bringing their magical musings cogent written material and puissant posts to actual combat real world reality.Since Chris will never provide actual evidence of his words,we can't actually be sure which side of the fence he actually is on...because he has to show his techs and drills etc etc etc to prove that point. I have.He hasn't and he won't.

That's why it's best to agree to disagree and move on.